----- Original Message ----- From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 7:33 AM Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
> I also have to believe that part of the difference is in > the perceived legitimacy of the way those decisions were made. The Civil > Rights Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by Lyndon B. Johnson > under the authority of the 14th Amendment which was also passed and debated > under the appropriate Constitutional processes. Roe vs. Wade on the other > hand was handed down by an unelected judiciary via a court case the defense > thought they couldn't possibly lose, and with little national debate. You are too young to remember all the "impeach Earl Warren" bumper stickers. The poster child for conservative judicial activism was "Brown vs. Board of Education." > Thus, what I think is happening today is that a lot of people are very > scared and surprised by the prospect of an unelected judiciary imposing a > radical reinterpretation of the social order without the proper level of > democratic debate on the subject. After all, let's face it, the primary > impetus behind most of these new laws and behind all of this talk of > Constitutional amendments, is the prospect of judicial decisions like those > in Massachusetts. (And the one in Massachusetts seems particularly > egregious in my mind because of the inherent time delays required in > amending the Massachusetts State Constitution, thus creating the > possibility for the ludicrous result that Massachusetts will have gay > marriages for the next two years, until the State Constitutional amendment > goes through - as currently seems likely.) In other words, opposition to > homosexual marriage is not "being promoted as the one thing that will save > our society from inevitable moral and social decay." There was no great > and successful push to do so until the past year or two. Indeed, this > issue hardly existed at all in the most recent Presidential Election. > Rather, opposition to homosexual marriage is gaining traction in this > country precisely because of the prospect that without this opposition, > homosexual marriages will happen without a debate and without a vote. But, at the same time, civil unions faced overwhelming opposition until just recently. Several years ago, it was a radical position. Right after the the Mass. court ruling, a conservative Virginia legislative body approved civil unions. Or at least only as far as the > Constitutional amendment to ban abortion. And I think I've made it clear > as to why I think that has changed. > Thus, right now, I can't help but think that the best case scenario for the > pro-homosexual marriage side that the worst consequence of taking their > fight out of the legislatures and into the Court rooms is that they create > a very large and vocal anti-homosexual minority that nevertheless can never > quite summon the requisite votes to overturn the status quo - i.e. > analogous to the modern pro-life movement. Why not civil rights, it started the same way. Indeed, the initial data supports that. > The worst case scenario is > that people react adversely to what they perceive as an undemocratic > altering of familiar and popular social institutions, and actually go > beyond support of the recent spate of laws (like this one in Ohio) but go > all the way towards supporting various Constitutional amendments on this > subject - thereby setting backwards the cause of homosexual marriages by > several decades at least. > > JDG > > _______________________________________________________ > John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, > it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03 > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
